Monday, September 1, 2008

Sorry, Mr Williams QC

Updated and Bumped: here's the full report from 'stuff.'

"Mr Peters said it would take about five minutes to exonerate his party.".................

.........."Mr Beattie said the investigation involved a comprehensive reconstruction of what had happened to the money.

"Sometimes these things can take weeks or even longer."

On Radio Left Wing News at 0900 the acting director of the SFO has advised that its investigators will be meeting with the four trustees of the Spencer Trust 'sometime soon.' He went on to say that it was likely to be some time before the enquiry would be completed - or words to that effect.

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

So much for the week-end's pathetic lawyerly bluster about 'immaculate evidence which exonerates Mr Peters of any wrong doing.'


Inventory2 said...

Adolf - as I commented both on Friday night and on Saturday (in the wake of Peter Williams QC's appearance on Campbell Live) the Spencer Trust information may indeed be immaculate - but the SFO will be judging it by whether it is ACCURATE!!

And BTW - what wealthy donor will be paying the QC's account?

Anonymous said...

Taito and his lawyer did this sort of bluster as weel. Remember??

adamsmith1922 said...

Well Williams would say that wouldn't he.

Merely producing a schedule from the Spencer Trust proves absolutely nothing. All the documentation has to be verified and in a case such as this fully authenticated.

At the very least at the end of the day questions will still need to be asked why no reports turned up in the Electoral Commission returns of Spencer Trust money.

Though as only ' technical offence' and out of time, no doubt Winston would claim that means nothing.

Incidentally, how come the Spencer Trust material is suddenly all available when was not Wayne Peters claiming client privilege re this stuff recently?

If this can be breached here, why not Brian Henry re the Glenn issue?

Anonymous said...

If the money went to NZ First, why wasnt it declared in their Electoral Returns?
Has Peter Williams (Labour luvvie)admitted his client submitted false returns?

pdm said...

As I aid earlier elswhere the SFO must go to the banks and get copies of statements, cheques and deposits. This is the only accurate way of showing who the payments came from and where the money went.

It seems likely that a bank, or a number of banks, may have may have breached the current Cheques Act by allowing cheques which were `Not Transferrable' or `Account Payee Only' to be lodged to accounts other than those of the payee.

I wouldn't trust anything being provided by Winston or his cohorts - including either Peter or Mike Williams

Anonymous said...

Williams should not believe everything his befuddled client tells him...

Cactus Kate said...


Peter Williams is yesterday's man.

You don't take papers TO the SFO that you wish them to see and expect the investigation to go away.

The SFO can come and get whatever they like, which isn't going to be what you volunteer to them is it?

Many taxpayers would have liked the chance to meet the SFO informally first to try to stop a thorough rucking (usually undeserved) that follows.